PDA

View Full Version : Iosif Stalin Tanks



PanzerschreckLeopard
07-24-2009, 02:43 PM
Some well known tanks!






IS-1


http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/4635/tanks/is/is1_85.jpg





IS-2


http://www.battletanks.com/images/IS2-2.jpg





IS-3


http://dummidumbwit.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/is3_3.jpg





IS-4


http://www.battlefield.ru/tanks/is4/last_is4_2.jpg





IS-5


http://www.battlefield.ru/tanks/is4/last_is5_1.jpg





IS-6


http://www.battlefield.ru/tanks/is4/last_is6_3.jpg





IS-7


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d1/IS-7.JPG/800px-IS-7.JPG





T-10 (IS-8/9/10)


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/T-10_tank.jpg

Chevan
08-04-2009, 01:34 AM
T-10 was a last soviet heavy tank.
After that the Soviet tank doctrine has been finally turned to mass production of medium T-54/55/64/72.

Nickdfresh
08-04-2009, 08:16 AM
It seems the USSR had the same problems with heavy tanks as the UK and US did, they were unreliable and a massive drain on resources...

Chevan
08-04-2009, 10:25 AM
It seems the USSR had the same problems with heavy tanks as the UK and US did, they were unreliable and a massive drain on resources...
I'm not sure coz Americans has choosed the other way..
American 60-tonns Abrams currently is the heavest tank of the world:)and damn expensive..
Recently i watched the film on DiscaveryScience about Abrams.They claimed its' the fastest tank ( 70 km /h), its' TWICE more speedy then the T-34, they proudly said.:)
This is not true,of course.
firstly T-34 was able to drive 50 km/h.
secondary T-80 with gas-turbine yet in 1990 fly almost 85 km/h.

Nickdfresh
08-04-2009, 12:26 PM
I'm not sure coz Americans has choosed the other way..
American 60-tonns Abrams currently is the heavest tank of the world:)and damn expensive..
Recently i watched the film on DiscaveryScience about Abrams.They claimed its' the fastest tank ( 70 km /h), its' TWICE more speedy then the T-34, they proudly said.:)
This is not true,of course.
firstly T-34 was able to drive 50 km/h.
secondary T-80 with gas-turbine yet in 1990 fly almost 85 km/h.

I agree the M1A2 Abrams is heavy in the strictest sense of the word. But today we could argue that it's not that much heavier than its contemporaries such as the German Leopard II, the French LeClerc, and the British Challenger II. The M1 was designed from the ground up to use newer automotive technologies that could handle the weight and power needed and still provide vital reliability...

The Abrams does use way too much fuel, and I think the US is now thinking of eventually replacing the aging, thirsty turbines with an MTU turbo-diesel unit once the Wars are settled. Incidently, I believe 70 kph is the limit with the restriction of the engine-governor. It should also be noted that the M1 actually has a far better cross-country performance due to its modern suspension and will not beat its crews near to death. According to Wiki, the tank can achieve speeds up to 97 kph with the restricter removed, but those speeds will pretty much destroys the suspension and eats the tracks...

Chevan
08-05-2009, 12:32 AM
The Abrams does use way too much fuel, and I think the US is now thinking of eventually replacing the aging, thirsty turbines with an MTU turbo-diesel unit once the Wars are settled. Incidently, I believe 70 kph is the limit with the restriction of the engine-governor.
The same with the T-90.
It's equiped with turbo-diesel just like old simple and reliable T-72. The gas-turbine is damn expensive and its needs a THREE Times more fuel per each km of way.The other trouble of using the turbine - it needs a tonns of pure air , that might be the hard in the desert.The first T-80 had deserved the reputation of unreliable tank in Afganistan yet in 1980-yy becouse dust gets into the turbin, damagin superexpensive mechanism. Tank can be stopped with losing of functionality right on the battlefield ( with serious consequenced for crew). That's why soviet tank crews prefered the turbo-diesel T-72, inspite of newest active armor of T-80.
The great speed of newest gas-turbin tanks wasn't endeed demanded at the condition of cont-partisan warfare.

pdf27
08-05-2009, 02:29 AM
I'm not sure coz Americans has choosed the other way..
American 60-tonns Abrams currently is the heavest tank of the world:)and damn expensive..
Recently i watched the film on DiscaveryScience about Abrams.They claimed its' the fastest tank ( 70 km /h), its' TWICE more speedy then the T-34, they proudly said.:)
This is not true,of course.
firstly T-34 was able to drive 50 km/h.
secondary T-80 with gas-turbine yet in 1990 fly almost 85 km/h.
Heavy tanks were an outgrowth of WW1 really - the British for example had their Rhomboidal heavy tanks that were optimised for the break-in to the enemy positions but were so slow (due to the weight of armour and armament) that they couldn't move at more than walking pace for exploitation. They also had their Whippet tanks that were significantly faster (8mph) but with limited armour and armament. That division continued until enormously powerful engines became available at the back end of WW2, leading to the development of "Universal" or or "Main Battle" tanks which could fulfil both roles. The T-34 was close to being one (if a bit undergunned), and I'd personally rate the Centurion as being the first of these Universal tanks. T-80, Abrams, etc. are all examples of this type of tank - fast and heavily armoured with an extremely powerful main gun.

Chevan
08-05-2009, 05:28 AM
Sure Centurion was the first Universal medium tank in full sense, that btw seriously has impressed the soviets in 1949, when T-54 was developing.
Especialy it's MK6 modification with 105 mm gun - the tank that made the Soviets engeneers to instal the smooth-barrel 110 mm gun on T-62 in hurry:)
I don't think though the Heavy tank concept was ww1 outgrowth. The first really effective heavy tank was Tiger2 , that though had a unreliable transmittion and low speed ( 12-15 km/h accorging tests) . But all it was just "children's defects" that might be very soon eliminated . Just extremaly short time of combat service ( since end 1943 -1945) has not allowed the GErman designers to creat the real Heavy masterpiece IMO.
The ww1 multi-turret monsters were in fact just easy targets for any-caliber artillery.Like Soviet T-35 ( the copy of british Vikkers)

pdf27
08-05-2009, 01:42 PM
Oh, no real argument that they were any good - just saying that the concept went back that far. Until the Centurion, the British had always used "Cruiser" tanks in the light role and "Infantry" tanks in the heavy role. So far as I'm aware (and my knowledge on this subject is pretty woeful), other countries used the same division between light and heavy tanks too.

Nickdfresh
08-05-2009, 06:58 PM
Oh, no real argument that they were any good - just saying that the concept went back that far. Until the Centurion, the British had always used "Cruiser" tanks in the light role and "Infantry" tanks in the heavy role. So far as I'm aware (and my knowledge on this subject is pretty woeful), other countries used the same division between light and heavy tanks too.

The French also had strict delineations between infantry and cavalry tanks,even though many of their designs were quite good and blurred the rigid distinctions with models such as the SOMUA S35. The US, insomuch as they had any tanks, also followed the infantry vs. cavalry model...

Tiger205
03-05-2010, 02:44 AM
T-10 was a last soviet heavy tank.
After that the Soviet tank doctrine has been finally turned to mass production of medium T-54/55/64/72.

Hello!

For T-64/T-72 I prefer to use the Main Battle Tank definition.
These tanks were able to fulfill the requirements for support, Tank vs tank fight and breakthrough. So - they were no any need for heavy tanks like T-10 (which was a preatty good beast - and not a rare one - several thousands had been produced!).

TGR

Tiger205
03-05-2010, 02:50 AM
Sure Centurion was the first Universal medium tank in full sense, that btw seriously has impressed the soviets in 1949, when T-54 was developing.
Especialy it's MK6 modification with 105 mm gun - the tank that made the Soviets engeneers to instal the smooth-barrel 110 mm gun on T-62 in hurry:)
I don't think though the Heavy tank concept was ww1 outgrowth. The first really effective heavy tank was Tiger2 , that though had a unreliable transmittion and low speed ( 12-15 km/h accorging tests) . But all it was just "children's defects" that might be very soon eliminated . Just extremaly short time of combat service ( since end 1943 -1945) has not allowed the GErman designers to creat the real Heavy masterpiece IMO.
The ww1 multi-turret monsters were in fact just easy targets for any-caliber artillery.Like Soviet T-35 ( the copy of british Vikkers)

Hello!
I have an interesting story :lol:
During the Hungarian revolution (uprising or counter-revolution earlier) in 1956 Hungarians captured a brand new soviet T-54 and handed over to the British Embassy. The tank shocked western experts - they declared the 100 mm gun very dangerous .
So they developed the excellent and classic 105 mm gun.
After the socialst countries face with this gun (e.g. Arab-Israel wars) they started to develop the smooth-bore guns (115 and later 125 mmm).
So the circle of development has been closed :lol:

TGR

Tiger205
03-05-2010, 03:34 AM
JS-3s finished their carrier in Budapest 1956.

TGR

http://img0.tar.hu/tiger205/size2/73114515.jpg
http://img0.tar.hu/tiger205/size2/73114514.jpg

Librarian
04-27-2010, 08:41 AM
Please excuse me for my continuous scientific impertinence, my dear Mr. Tiger 205, but in reality those Soviet engineers within the OKB-9 under direction of the Chief Engineer F. F. Petrov had actually constructed that legendary 115 mm smoothbore cannon 2A20 [army designation: U5-TS "Molot" (Hammer)] in 1958 – nine years before the Arabs even bumped into those very intelligently upgraded Israeli M48A3's with a new 105mm British L7 gun (emplaced in the Israeli Urdan cupola).

You know – just for the record. ;)

Churchill
04-27-2010, 06:31 PM
You know – just for the record. ;)

Sure, whatever you say Librarian. :D

Librarian
04-28-2010, 10:42 AM
Пожалуйста, my dear Mr. Prime Minister. In the meantime, if you do have some spare time on your disposal, just check one incredibly intriguing article, namely this one: Krapke, P.: Zur Sowjetischen Kampfpanzerentwicklung ("Truppendienst", 1979. - No. 1). I am assuring you that you will be absolutely delighted. ;)

In the meantime, here are some additional snapshots which are connected with our heavy metal entity:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/IS3-Budapest1956.jpg

Budapest, Andrássy út – 1956

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/IS3-Hungary1955.jpg

Hungary, 1955 – JS 3 on maneuvers

In the meantime, as always – all the best! :)

Tiger205
04-29-2010, 08:30 AM
Please excuse me for my continuous scientific impertinence, my dear Mr. Tiger 205, but in reality those Soviet engineers within the OKB-9 under direction of the Chief Engineer F. F. Petrov had actually constructed that legendary 115 mm smoothbore cannon 2A20 [army designation: U5-TS "Molot" (Hammer)] in 1958 – nine years before the Arabs even bumped into those very intelligently upgraded Israeli M48A3's with a new 105mm British L7 gun (emplaced in the Israeli Urdan cupola).

You know – just for the record. ;)

OK, Dear Mr. Librarian,
let me correct it:
"The 100 mm D-10T and D-54 tank guns had fierce enemy in a form of British L4A1 tank gun. The Soviets decided to "recaliber" the already existing 100 mm D-54TS tank gun. The modifications done to gun included removing the rifling of the gun, reducing the profile of the bullet chamber, removing the muzzle brake, lengthening the gun tube, adding an automatic cartridge-case ejector and adding the bore evacuator in middle of the gun tube (which differed it from D-45TS tank gun which had a bore evacuator in base of the gun tube). The new 115 mm tank gun was designated U-5TS "Molot" Rapira, which was the first Soviet 115 mm smoothbore tank gun. When it went into serial production it also received a designation 2A20.
The new 115 mm U-5TS "Molot" (2A20) Rapira smoothbore tank gun was fitted into the Ob'yekt 140 turret in the end of 1960......"

Is it better now?
:)

Tiger205
04-29-2010, 08:37 AM
Nice photos!
The first is portraying a very famous formation:
Exactly the same machines (JS-3, T-34/85, PT-76) are very well known from the TV News archives related the 1956 revolution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0N8kfwihyA

Check the last seconds for example of this video!
(You can also see JS-152-s captured by Hungarian Revolutionists)

Librarian
04-29-2010, 10:45 AM
Much, much better, my dear Mr. Tiger 205. :)

Even though I have to admit fairly and squarely that this piece of British artillery called the "L4A1 tank gun" - unlike that renowned and deeply respected Royal Ordnance L 7! - is completely unknown to me. Quite frankly – I really don’t know where exactly those Soviet D-54’s actually met that cannon in combat, but if you do have some additional information, I am assuring you that it surely will represent an excellent element for our new thread about the history of the Soviet post-WW2 tank constructions, or perhaps about the underestimated T 62. You know, those incredibly intriguing materials which still are available – alas! – only in Russian, really ought to have a proper English presentation on "our own" side of the Internet. :D

And now, back to our special heavy metal star of this thread:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/IS3-Germany1947.jpg

IS – 3 on maneuvers – German Democratic Republic, 1947

And if you are interested for some additional photos of the IS 3 in Budapest back there in 1956, I think that I do have somewhere those snapshots taken by Mr. Szüllő Attila, which were printed in the renowned Hungarian illustrated magazine "Regiment" in 2006... or perhaps in 2007 – I am not quite sure about that. But don't worry - just give me some more time. ;)

In the meantime, as always – all the best! ;)

Tiger205
04-30-2010, 04:50 AM
Dear Mr. Librarian!

As I have quite all "Regiments" (somewhere) I will dig for it! :)
I am in quite a good relation ship of Mr. Tőrös (father of this magazine).

JS-3 is for mi a NICE, but noticeable failure - it was never so famous and reliable that its predecessor - and JS-3M even outlived this heavy tool.
Anyways, I have some very rare HARD COPIES of photos from Hungarian JS-2s in a May first parade (as it is actuality now) - mybe I scan it soon!
Have a nice weekend!

Egorka
04-30-2010, 09:23 AM
IS-7
http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/WWII/shashmurin/is7.jpg

Librarian
04-30-2010, 02:52 PM
You have a deal, my dear Mr. Tiger 205! In the meantime I have already checked all available data, and I am assuring you that all those pictures are published in the "Regiment" No. 3/2006, p. 15 (article "Acélkoporsók" by Kovács Vilmos). ;)

In the intervening time, I have the pleasure to present here one pretty rare color snapshot which is directly connected with our steal beast, namely this one:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/IS-3Budapest-1956color.jpg

Knocked-out IS-3 – Budapest, 1956 [the corner of József körút (Joseph boulevard) and Üllői út (Üllői Avenue)]. Photo taken by Mr. József Vas

After all – this website is known as the historical sanctuary to every single devotee of color snapshots. :)

And unlike you, my dear Mr. Tiger 205, I think that the IS-3 is only fairly misjudged. If we reconsider the fact that its well sloped armor was almost impenetrable to the majority of already existing anti-tank weapons, that its gun was more than adequate to deal with almost everything on the battlefield in those days, and if we do reconsider numerous other numerical indicators (power-to-weight ratio, dimensions, specific ground pressure of the vehicle, radius of action, etc.), then those words of an true expert of the tank warfare, and also my personal consultant in numerous issues connected with armored fighting vehicles – Dr. Ferdinand von Senger und Etterlin – do seem valuable in this specific field:

"…rational construction of the frontal part of the hull and the turret is worthy of the very best grade. Besides that, this tank is distinguishing itself with a very small height. In year of 1956 the IS-3 tank reserves to itself the combination of best heavy fighting machine qualities."

Yes, I know my dear Mr. Tiger 205 – IS-3 (unlike the IS-7, obviously dearly beloved by our esteemed colleague Mr. Egorka as well, or those forgotten armored Objects designed by the VNII-100) is not representing the ideal combat vehicle, but just imagine an everlasting hour of pure joy while driving this beauty up and down over the Liebenwerdaer Heide, while your 10-RT tank radio set is continuously delivering into your ears those joyful verses Früh am Morgen erwacht unser Städtchen…

True happiness may be sought, or thought or caught - but never bought, my dear Mr. Tiger 205. Therefore, just follow this link, and use your own imagination:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWhref2gmyM

I wish you many moments of unadulterated enjoyment. See you after the May Day parade. ;)

Chevan
05-03-2010, 02:27 AM
Hello!
I have an interesting story :lol:
During the Hungarian revolution (uprising or counter-revolution earlier) in 1956 Hungarians captured a brand new soviet T-54 and handed over to the British Embassy. The tank shocked western experts - they declared the 100 mm gun very dangerous .
So they developed the excellent and classic 105 mm gun.
After the socialst countries face with this gun (e.g. Arab-Israel wars) they started to develop the smooth-bore guns (115 and later 125 mmm).
So the circle of development has been closed :lol:

TGR

Hello Tiger.
I have read the simular story about tank's "gun competition".
But mr Librarian is damn accurate as always - his Library is full of secret knowledges that we can't read until he post it on the forum..:D

Librarian
05-05-2010, 02:51 PM
Oh, thank you very much for your compliments, my dear Mr. Chevan. You know, we – nowadays not so Young Pioneers – are always somehow inclined toward the technical progress. :)

And our special guest star actually initialized numerous experimental vehicles, like this pretty unknown piece of self-propelled artillery:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Objekt_268_2.jpg

Object No. 268 – a 152mm self-propelled gun-howitzer on a modified IS-3 tank chassis

At first sight, honorable ladies and gentlemen, there seems to be little difference between a tank and a self propelled artillery gun. Both are on tracks, and both have a gun. The essential difference is that of role. While tanks are designed to primarily engage other armored vehicles that they can see to aim (this is called direct fire), artillery fires at targets at up to ten times the range of a tank, and usually ones which the gun crew cannot see themselves.

Soviet doctrine always stated that without artillery’s ability to lay down accurate and quick heavy supporting fire battles could not be won. Hence, Soviet command always supported artillery on tracks, especially that one equipped with noteworthy armor protection, and the means to propel itself without the help of other vehicles.

In 1956 a new, officially never adopted, but very intriguing heavy armored assault gun on the IS-3 basis was introduced. Designated as Obiekt 268 (268th development project), it consisted of a simple, but very strong armored box superstructure, outfitted with an improved variant of the well-known 152 mm gun-howitzer, this time moderniyed with a gas-evacuator. The prototype has successfully passed all trials in 1956, but due to large numbers of already existing ISU-152s in service this design newer was accepted for serial production.

Well, that’s all for today. In the meantime, as always – all the best!

http://www.rusmed-forever.ru/forum/style_emoticons/default/take_example.gif

Tiger205
05-06-2010, 09:34 AM
Y

And unlike you, my dear Mr. Tiger 205, I think that the IS-3 is only fairly misjudged. If we reconsider the fact that its well sloped armor was almost impenetrable to the majority of already existing anti-tank weapons, that its gun was more than adequate to deal with almost everything on the battlefield in those days, and if we do reconsider numerous other numerical indicators (power-to-weight ratio, dimensions, specific ground pressure of the vehicle, radius of action, etc.), then those words of an true expert of the tank warfare, and also my personal consultant in numerous issues connected with armored fighting vehicles – Dr. Ferdinand von Senger und Etterlin – do seem valuable in this specific field:

"…rational construction of the frontal part of the hull and the turret is worthy of the very best grade. Besides that, this tank is distinguishing itself with a very small height. In year of 1956 the IS-3 tank reserves to itself the combination of best heavy fighting machine qualities."

Yes, I know my dear Mr. Tiger 205 – IS-3 (unlike the IS-7, obviously dearly beloved by our esteemed colleague Mr. Egorka as well, or those forgotten armored Objects designed by the VNII-100) is not representing the ideal combat vehicle, but just imagine an everlasting hour of pure joy while driving this beauty up and down over the Liebenwerdaer Heide, while your 10-RT tank radio set is continuously delivering into your ears those joyful verses Früh am Morgen erwacht unser Städtchen…


My Dear Friends,
thanks for your quotes.
i have never ever underestimated the IS-3 armour and main gun caliber, but reliability for me is something different.
As my sources are right, the power train (engine?) had continuous problems, and never forget, the main armament (D-25 gun) is originated form a filed artillery piece, so it was relative slow and it had few (28 pcs?) ammo ....Very good shape turret - not useful for the good negative angel
That's why I have reservations about IS-3...
:)

Tiger205
05-06-2010, 09:41 AM
József krt. / Üllői út was a dealy place tor the conquerors - as it was controlled by the AP guns of the freedom-fighters' main centre in the Corvin alleyway...
The huge building in the background is the "Kilián" barracks...
The Corvin alleyway was an ideal place for defence.

VERY NICE Photo indeed!
Thanks!

Panther F
05-06-2010, 02:37 PM
"Object No. 268 – a 152mm self-propelled gun-howitzer on a modified IS-3 tank chassis"

Doesn't look like an IS-3 chassis. Too many road wheels for it only had 6.


- Jeff

Librarian
05-07-2010, 03:28 PM
Don’t believe the gossip, my dear Mr. Tiger 205. After all, when those usual childhood diseases (otherwise completely natural) were cured, the IS-3 matured and turned out to be a very reliable vehicle. This stance was confirmed by retired Soviet colonel Dmitri Rotar, who has been ex-commander of the Heavy Tank Regiment within the 33rd Guard Kherson Mechanized Division of the Soviet army in mid fifties. By his own words: "I was ordered to participate to suppress infamous rebellion in Budapest, Hungary in 1956. At that moment my unit was located in Romania, 350 kilometers away, so I was ordered to make a fast march to Budapest. My regiment drove at max speed, it was very intensive for heavy tanks, and I must say there were no breakdowns at all! Not a single tank was broken during this route! This is a clear example I think. JS-3 was not unreliable, it was simply underrated." :)

Also I really don’t know why those really well-known characteristics of the D-25 main gun still are representing some source of misinterpretation. Yes, my dear Mr. Tiger 205 – the D-25 indeed possessed a sluggish rate of fire (3 rounds per minute), but in factual combat that characteristic never represented some real problem. After all, just call to your mind those truly interesting experiences of the Guards Lieutenant V. A. Udalov, who knocked out without a hitch 3 King Tigers with his IS-2 tank (equipped with that slow-firing D-25 cannon) in an encounter in the area of Sandomierz in august of 1944.

Also, in numerous discussions it is also frequently forgotten that the Soviet OF 471 high explosive and fragmentation shell actually possessed certain characteristics of the so called High Explosive Squashead projectile. You see, when that heavy chemical energy round smacks into the enemy tank and when the fuse detonates the explosive, the resulting explosion sends heavy shock waves through the armor, causing pieces of it to break off on the inside and to fly around the turret and hull and to hurt the crew. That quality was also very usable against numerous soft targets and objects of heavy defensive fortification.

But I do agree with you that something significantly better, something really more powerful is necessary for our master weapon of war. Perhaps some variant of that Soviet heavy 152 mm AA monster, known as the KM 52 is much better solution for our ideal tank. To hell, our perfect vehicle deserves the full-automatic horizontal sliding wedge breech, a power rammer and an automatic fuze setter! Furthermore – we do need a special electromechanical fire control system and the fixed-charge ammunition, as well as the artillery locating radar with some anti-aircraft abilities. In that case we will have unprecedented rate of fire (at least 17 heavy 49 kg shells in every minute), unrivaled range (33 km!), and unparalleled capability of penetration (450 mm of armor at 1500 m using APSFSDS with a hafnium-carbide core)!

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/KM52-152.jpg

KM 52 – super-heavy Soviet anti-aircraft gun, 1952

And please remember, my dear Mr. Tiger 205 – only the best possible is good enough for us! :army:

Also, I must say that I am pretty confused due to that most argument of yours relating to "not useful for the good negative angle".

Allow me a tiny explanation, my dear Mr. Tiger 205. You see, actually we are talking here about a typical Durchbruchswagen – a breakthrough vehicle. Essentially, we don’t need that hull-down ability. Our vehicle is a master weapon of attack, it already has an excellent armor protection, it already is very low, we have massive pre-planned indirect artillery fire on our disposal and defilade or hilltop defense firing is not our beloved kind of activity. Actually, our potential enemies with their almost half meter higher silhouette and much weaker hull protective armor, and those highly inflammable petrol engines are almost in fixed necessity to do that. They do need those prepared positions and additional hard cover behind a raised ground. But we don’t need those palliative tactical measures! We have ten seconds to strike, and a single hit from our main gun will do the thing. If we are near to the enemy, we shall move at top speed while being covered by other tanks from static positions. Besides, quantitative superiority is already on our side.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/is3_01.jpg

IS-3

Maybe our tank is not very eye-catching on the battlefield, but when it is used its effect will be just as decisive as it has always been. ;)


Doesn't look like an IS-3 chassis. Too many road wheels for it only had 6.

Well, I have already used that expression MODIFIED CHASSIS, my dear Mr. Panther F. :)

In the meantime, as always - all the best.

Tiger205
05-13-2010, 02:48 AM
Don’t believe the gossip, my dear Mr. Tiger 205. After all, when those usual childhood diseases (otherwise completely natural) were cured, the IS-3 matured and turned out to be a very reliable vehicle. This stance was confirmed by retired Soviet colonel Dmitri Rotar, who has been ex-commander of the Heavy Tank Regiment within the 33rd Guard Kherson Mechanized Division of the Soviet army in mid fifties. By his own words: "I was ordered to participate to suppress infamous rebellion in Budapest, Hungary in 1956. At that moment my unit was located in Romania, 350 kilometers away, so I was ordered to make a fast march to Budapest. My regiment drove at max speed, it was very intensive for heavy tanks, and I must say there were no breakdowns at all! Not a single tank was broken during this route! This is a clear example I think. JS-3 was not unreliable, it was simply underrated." :)

Also I really don’t know why those really well-known characteristics of the D-25 main gun still are representing some source of misinterpretation. Yes, my dear Mr. Tiger 205 – the D-25 indeed possessed a sluggish rate of fire (3 rounds per minute), but in factual combat that characteristic never represented some real problem. After all, just call to your mind those truly interesting experiences of the Guards Lieutenant V. A. Udalov, who knocked out without a hitch 3 King Tigers with his IS-2 tank (equipped with that slow-firing D-25 cannon) in an encounter in the area of Sandomierz in august of 1944.

Also, in numerous discussions it is also frequently forgotten that the Soviet OF 471 high explosive and fragmentation shell actually possessed certain characteristics of the so called High Explosive Squashead projectile. You see, when that heavy chemical energy round smacks into the enemy tank and when the fuse detonates the explosive, the resulting explosion sends heavy shock waves through the armor, causing pieces of it to break off on the inside and to fly around the turret and hull and to hurt the crew. That quality was also very usable against numerous soft targets and objects of heavy defensive fortification.

But I do agree with you that something significantly better, something really more powerful is necessary for our master weapon of war. Perhaps some variant of that Soviet heavy 152 mm AA monster, known as the KM 52 is much better solution for our ideal tank. To hell, our perfect vehicle deserves the full-automatic horizontal sliding wedge breech, a power rammer and an automatic fuze setter! Furthermore – we do need a special electromechanical fire control system and the fixed-charge ammunition, as well as the artillery locating radar with some anti-aircraft abilities. In that case we will have unprecedented rate of fire (at least 17 heavy 49 kg shells in every minute), unrivaled range (33 km!), and unparalleled capability of penetration (450 mm of armor at 1500 m using APSFSDS with a hafnium-carbide core)!



Have a nice day, Mr. Librarian!

No doubt - marching 350 km is a very heavy task - just for the tracks for example - but i still do not understand, IF JS-3 was successful, why the old JS-2 M over-served it with decades???
Anyways, we will (maybe) never understand the Soviet logic in weapon development and implementation... :)

The gun had no "BIG" problems (OK, maybe the elevation), as we consider that JS series was made for breakthrough tasks, not for anti-tank role.
The monster gun (IMHO) is totally unnecessary, as
- too heavy, too long for tank-installation
- anyways, the Soviets had NO optics (and computers) that time to control such a powerful punch.

The low rate of fire - IMHO once more - in critical situation was more dangerous - than the AP capability..

Related to UDALOV:
Prejudiced Russian source say:
"The reasons behind the Sandomierz King Tiger fiasco include cleverly prepared Soviet defenses and, without a doubt, the high level of professionalism of Soviet tank crews. The Germans failed due to faulty planning and tactics, and particularly because of the direction of the attack for the 70-tonne King Tigers."

So (by my words):
- 11 Tiger(B) were able to fight from the whole battalion (Abteilung)
- Very bad Recon from German side
- Foggy morning,
- JS-2's in ambush with experienced and brave commander,
- medium distance
- inexperienced German crew

And the result is given....

Librarian
05-13-2010, 10:29 AM
Oh, I always do have a nice day when I am chatting about different technological and tactical issues with you, my dear Mr. Tiger 205. ;)

So let’s go to work:


... I still do not understand, IF JS-3 was successful, why the old JS-2 M over-served it with decades???

That issue probably has certain connections with the costs of maintenance to keep them working. As you know, after all modifications weight of the JS-3 M had increased up to 48.8 tones, and main wheel bearing shells probably suffered from increased rate of wear and tear.


The monster gun (IMHO) is totally unnecessary, as
- too heavy, too long for tank-installation
- anyways, the Soviets had *NO* optics (and computers) that time to control such a powerful punch.

On the contrary, my dear Mr. Tiger 205 – superior gunnery is a key for the victorious combat engagement. You know, with certain modifications that cannon (although a rifled one!) would have been the most powerful dual-purpose gun system in the world even today.

Appropriate usage of light alloys, implementation of power-assisted servo-mechanisms, application of the radically new designing concept with a reduced crew to only two man positioned all in the hull, implementation of the main gun directly positioned inside the rotative omni-directional armored basket (loaded fully automatically rather than by one or two members of the crew) use of multi-layered armored protection combined with an extremely powerful two-stroke Diesel engine, as well as with completely sealed and blast-secured combat department is completely capable to achieve a completely new master weapon of war – unbeatable in direct engagement with all enemy tanks.

Briefly, my dear Mr. Tiger 205 – our goal is some 60 or 70 metric tons heavy variant of this already planned armored beauty:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/nii100rl6.jpg

Object 432 – VNII 100

Of course, some other possibilities are on our disposal as well. Just imagine, for example, a combination of the Obiect 279 chassis with a new two-man-in-the-hull concept, significantly increased combination of the laminar and spaced armor, autoloader, radar-enhanced electro-mechanical fire-control mechanism, and the Balandine-type of 12 cylinder four-block omnivorous two-stroke turbo-compound Diesel engine with a 4500 HP output:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/BalandinEngine.jpg

Balandine - OM-127 RN Diesel

As always – power-to-mass ratio is the key to our success. :)

And once again – don’t believe those ignominious anti-technological gossips, my dear Mr. Tiger 205. Soviets actually had envisioned that radar-rangefinder enhanced optical T2-S gunsight back there in 1959.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/obrazec.jpg

Soviet experimental radar rangefinder on the T62 tank

Now, just imagine a little bit more developed variant, paired with that 152 mm long-range monster… Fogs, dust, hours of darkness, are not a problem for us any more! :)


The low rate of fire - IMHO once more - in critical situation was more dangerous - than the AP capability

Would you be so kind to give us a little bit more detailed description of the phrase "critical situation", my dear Mr. Tiger 205. And by doing so, please don’t forget one especially important issue: fact that our numerical superiority (read: ability for an intense overlapping fire) is already achieved.


...JS-2's in ambush with experienced and brave commander.

A tiny Addendum, my dear Mr. Tiger 205: that third King Tiger actually was destroyed when Lieutenant Udalov broke his cover and advanced towards the enemy, firing again from the edge of a wood. That accomplishment was almost a perfect demonstration of a genuine, completely mobile pattern of offensive armored combat.

Well, that’s all for today, my dear Mr. Tiger 205. In the meantime, as always – all the best. ;)

mkenny
05-13-2010, 11:07 AM
- anyways, the Soviets had NO optics (and computers) that time to control such a powerful punch.



One of the most used mantra's of the fan-boys. There are field reports in one of Jentz's Tiger books where the German crews complain about fire from IS-2's that hit then first shot at long range. A Bovington report done on a T34/73 in 1943 comments on the simplicity of the design of the tanks optics whilst saying how good they were. Sadly I do not have the full report on the optics but clearly the Soviets did have effective and accurate sights.
Perhaps someone has information on wartime Soviet optics? I understand they copied German designs and then we can get away from this fiction that they did not have anything that worked properly.

Tiger205
05-16-2010, 05:03 PM
I have experience just with T-34 and T-55 optics.
They (EVEN the T55) were not enough to control such a monster (powerful) gun!
I was talking about the KM-52..
This is not a simple 122 mm!

Please examine the British problems to aim the 120 mm rifled gun of the Chieftain until the advent of the computer era (20 mm gun, etc.)

Tiger205
05-16-2010, 05:22 PM
Hello My dear Friend, some of my answers (I TRY, although I will be in county-side whole next week and I was sick in the last days)

Do not forget, I am not an expert, just an amateur with some ideas! :)

"Soviets actually had envisioned that radar-rangefinder enhanced optical T2-S gunsight back there in 1959. "
And why not introduced it? :)

"Would you be so kind to give us a little bit more detailed description of the phrase "critical situation", my dear Mr. Tiger 205."
Usual combat distance on fog of war during a combat situation, human status (injuries OR JUST fear, blood preasure, etc...) air strikes, artillery fire, radio contact (with or without, etc...)

This is also part of my answer for MY questions about your whole story about the unbeatable Objekts - "why not implemented, introduced them?
The answer simply: What for?
Warsaw Pact had mass armies, trained for mass breakthrough over the Main German plains and the secondary theatres - against armies with less tanks - so what they wanted is a MBT, not a super hyper Heavy tank!
The main aim was to reach Paris, not to fight against tanks :)
THE IRON FIST!!!

(by the way, do you know the old Soviet joke? I try, maybe not)
Two Soviet Tank Generals drinking champagne during the victory ceremony after the big Eurpoeran war (3rd WW ?) IN PARIS.
suddenly one of them ask the other:
- By the way, Serjosha, do you have any idea who won finally the air war?

Librarian
05-16-2010, 08:49 PM
Oh, is that your professional engineering opinion, my dear Mr. Tiger 205? Excellent. Please, proceed and give us a little bit more detailed explanation of this intriguing matter. And don’t worry – I am completely able to understand the power-flow block-diagrams of multi-station, non-linear unit-built work-flow lines, with all those transducers, measuring circuits, relays, amplifiers and actuators. You know, I was fortunate to have some good teachers, namely professor A. N. Malov, and assistant professor Yu. V. Ivanov. ;)

And I think that I do have some scientific recommendations for you too. Please, concentrate yourself upon the British heavy tank called Conqueror. And after that please read these highly intriguing articles:

"Un Chieftain ameliore pour l’Iran": REVUE INTERNATIONELE DE DEFENSE, 1976. – Vol. 4

Ogorkiewicz, R.: "Tank fire and gun control systems": INTERNATIONAL DEFENSE REVIEW, 1976. – No.1

Drosen, E.: "Das automatische Laden der Panzerkanone": SOLDAT UND TECHNIK, 1983. – No. 10


And why not introduced it?

Well, basically due to lack of good sense in high places. ;)

In the meantime, as always – all the best. :)

ABRALEX
04-07-2011, 07:29 PM
tanks

http://otvaga2004.narod.ru/photo/photo_razd_03.htm
http://otvaga2004.narod.ru/photo/photo_razd_01.htm

Из разных стран мы смотрим на одни и те же сцены лишь герои разные. :(

Churchill
04-07-2011, 10:25 PM
Interesting, nice websites, but maybe not in the right thread.